A forgotten Woody Allen film...?

[deleted]

You've got a point there, actually I haven't seen this film for years and years and as they don't put as many films on telly anymore.... I wouldn't mind seeing it again to refresh my memory. I mostly remember that I loved the acting in this.

AKonigsberg mentions Woody's other serious stuff, what would those be exactly ? I'm actually just getting into Woody (only because i did not really enjoy what i saw till i watched Another Woman last night) and would like to know about other films that may be on the same level as Another Woman.

*I enjoy when ppl reply in a negative or positive way to my comments*

I had never heard of this movie either and I see every Woody Allen movie when they come out. I just learned of this and got it from the library. It's fantastic!

Marion isn't a bitch, she's an ice-queen. She's not mean on purpose. She just doesn't realize how she comes across because she's so cold and unfeeling. Maybe a subtle difference, but it's all about intent. She doesn't intend to hurt people, but she lacks empathy. All head, no heart.

[deleted]

September, anyone?

Completely disagree with you on this. While Allen has never attempted subtlety (this by his own admission), and relies always on literal minded exposition, I don't feel that this takes anything away from his films. It's just how he works.

Yes, it's another Bergman homage, and yes it's filtered through the perspective of wealthy Manhattanites (as all of his melodramas are) but again, for me that's absolutely fine.

What makes the film memorable is Rowland's performance. She carries the entire story, and does so quite remarkably. The parts played by Holm and Hackman may be slight, but they both take the opportunity to play them well. Hackman in particular has some very nice scenes towards the end, and does an excellent job of playing against type.

The plot doesn't have the forward momentum or inherent charm of something like Purple Rose, or the philosophical depth of Crimes and Misdemeanors, but as a character study I find it works quite beautifully.


Obviously, all this with respect to your opinion. I just see this film quite differently.

---

He left a note. He left a simple little note that said, "I've gone out the window."

Oh, I don't think anyone is shut down. Hackman, who never was anyone's idea of a classically handsome matinee idol, in 1988 or before or after, gives a master class in that kitchen scene in how to be sexy and magnetic anyway ("Not even if he loved a woman passionately?"). He and Rowlands are brilliant there. He's also so tender as Larry's "dream" self, talking about his novel, his wife, his "Hlenka" character.

Holm has a thankless role, yes, but a necessary one.

The main thing I value about the film is how all of these great actors, principally Rowlands but all of them, are given space to create these people, and they're all surprisingly specific at it, from Plimpton's forlorn teenager to Houseman's ancient patriarch (Stiers is dead-on as the younger version). Harris Yulin has, I think, two scenes, and is heartbreaking as the brother, because he doesn't *try* to yank at anyone's heartstrings. He just matter-of-factly lays it out there, what his sister said to him and how he's lived with it all these years.

There is no better demonstration of Allen's supremacy as an actors' director. The film isn't on the level of Wild Strawberries, which was one of a kind, but it's not just a boiled-sterile aping of it either. It has some integrity as a piece on the same themes, even though it's awfully diagrammatic.

Its reputation seems to be on the upswing. Both the Telegraph and Time Out pieces of 2015-16 ranking Allen's nearly 50 films had it very high. Telegraph had it fourth, Time Out 13th.